Pages

Sunday, 11 July 2010

We've been a little busy here, arguing about abortion - too busy to turn our attention to the incredibly misogynist comments of erstwhile Rugby World Cup Ambassador Andy Haden. I can't speak for the others on this, but I tend to operate on a One Sexist Arse A Day Limit. Andy has had to wait his turn. He'll no doubt be relieved to hear that today is his day.

Having previously shown he's just a teeny bit racist, Haden came out earlier this week as a sexist too. Hopefully he'll be happy with the double and not come back later for a trifecta attempt with something hideously homophobic. Somehow I am not feeling very reassured about that.

So what did he say that was so so awful (possible triggering ahead around rape):From the Herald:

He was talking about historic sex allegations against former All Black Robin Brooke made by two unnamed women.

"There's a bloke called Hugh Grant - he got into a bit of trouble like this and I think if the cheque bounces sometimes, they only realise that they've been raped, you know, sometimes," he said.

"These things have got two sides to them and I think you can get on the front foot.

"It's an equal society now, some of these girls are targeting rugby players and targeting sportsmen and they do so at their peril today, I think."

Charming. Rape is fair turn-about for women who want spend time with sportsmen. And of course it's only rape if a woman doesn't get what she wanted. Is he actually meaning to imply that rugby players aren't very good at sex?

Haden is of course entitled to be a sexist arse. He can hold these views and I can't stop him. Even though he is very very wrong. What he can't do is spout this kind of crap when he's in a public role, representing us as an ambassador (even if it is about the Rugby World Cup).

Even being charitable about the time aspect, McCully didn't have to go and accept the resignation "with sadness". Unless that sadness was based on being saddened that there are still people who think that women ask for rape in this country.

Maybe McCully was teary-eyed at the thought that Haden's resignation didn't contain an apology, but instead reads so*:

Dear Murray, I wish to advise that I have decided to resign my role as an honorary Ambassador of the Government's 2011 Rugby World Cup programme. I do so to ensure that neither your leveraging initiatives or the game of Rugby that I love are compromised by the current media backlash to the comments I have made on television recently. I feel that to stay in the role, given the current media beat-up, would mean having to remove myself from making public comments on the game or related issues. I have always believed in saying what I think and I will always be true to myself in that regard and it's a sad day for society when people such as I are unable to express what we believe without a media beat-up from those with sectional interests.

I used to love rugby too (although possibly not enough to give it a capital R in the middle of a sentence). I grew up with pictures of rugby players on my walls, not to ogle them or secretly kiss them before bedtime, but because I was truly into the game itself. I didn't want to marry a rugby player, or indeed ever meet one, I just wanted to watch them play because I caught a love of the game from my father.

It was idiots like Haden that turned me off rugby. All the trappings that accompanied the first XV at my school (who weren't actually very good, they weren't even in the first grade of the local high schools' competition); the special treatment they received, how they got off when they did something wrong, and how quickly they bought into this mentality of God-like status once they made the team. I knew as a teen that it was wrong, but I didn't realise how ingrained it was in our country until I got older and started to see it writ large in the ABs and the rugby culture that surrounds them even after they can no longer pass the ball without creaking.

Haden is part of that culture, part of perpetuating it, and as an Elder Statesman of the game when he mutters about "darkies" and women asking for rape his words are heard widely and with authority. The fact that he can't see that, the fact that he can't even see his own privilege in having public platforms to make his pratfalls from, certainly makes me sad, even if it doesn't particularly grieve McCully.

I think Haden, and McCully, can consider this episode something of a diplomacy FAIL.

* The only place I could find such a full account of the resignation email was this really truly awful media release from SOLO (Lindsay Perigo) entitled Andy Haden - On Of The Few Honest And Courageous Men In NZ Public Life. I don't recommend making with the clicky, but wanted to be fair about acknowledging where I got it from.

Rugby fans will try and tell you that Haden and the dickweeds on your first fifteen are just bad apples, but it seems to me that rugby culture seems to nurture these personality types. Maybe rugby in and of itself isn't innately encouraging of violence and misogyny, but the current rugby culture here in NZ certainly is.

Ye gads, you NZ Con people really are hanging out here a lot lately aren't you?

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given the depth of disagreement between us on the issue of abortion that you would also have what I consider anti-woman views about rape, seeing as how those areas are the Two Biggies for many feminists.

Thank you cat and Hugh. I am so bamboozled by the rape apologist approach of LM and ZT that I don't know what to say right now, beyond this. To find people who would come over here, here of all places, where women have shared their stories of rape and we have written so so much about how NO ONE EVER ASKS FOR RAPE, and say those things, I am astonished.

And yet one is extremely rare, and the other far more common than is usually acknowledged. And one is continually used as an excuse to denigrate victims of the other, or as a derailing tactic when discussing the other.

Funny, that.

Women expecting gentlemen should not be putting themselves out there for rugby players, because it's not gentlemen they are after when it all comes down to it.

Is it actually necessary to point out that *not committing sexual assault* is a fairly basic line to draw for people who wish to be acceptable members of human society? And that the onus is upon those who commit it not to do it, rather than upon their victims?

He basically said the same thing I did, but in NZ it's oh so PC to say that.

You and many other people, none of whom apart from Haden have had the title "Ambassador" bestowed upon them by the NZ govt. Should you ever cop such a title, it might be worth pondering for a moment the meaning of the term - Haden obviously hasn't.

In other words, don't bring the tired old PC canard into it. If the govt asks you to be an ambassador for your country in some particularl field, don't spout your hilarious gags about "darkies" and tell women they hang out with sportsmen "at their peril," and then expect the govt to be still calling you Ambassador come Monday (unless the govt is currently represented by lazy and useless sack of shit Murray McCully, in which case it might take them a while to get round to it).

So LM because once you commented positively on a post standing up against what amounted to an online threat of rape against one of the bloggers who now writes here that gives you a free pass to come over here and say what you said at the start of this thread? No it doesn't. And if you can't see that then maybe you need to go away from commenting here for a while.

I'm not expecting a "free pass". I'm defending myself against your assertion that I am an apologist for rape, when I am no such thing. And as such, I offer proof to yourself and your readers of how I have acted in the past on something very related.

I merely have a very different opinion from yourself. If you want to personally attack me for that, fine. I'm getting used to it.

In a sense, I should also exercise prudence when considering posting on feminist blog. Use my own advice, so to speak.

LM, your comment at this top of the thread is totally in line with the rape apologist tag, and clearly, from the comments of others here, I am not the only one to see it that way. You say you agree with Haden. Haden has been called out on the extreme unhelpfulness (to put it mildly) of his comments by a number of organisations who work directly with those who have suffered rape.

"And yet one is extremely rare, and the other far more common than is usually acknowledged."

Strawman. Statistics please.

Rare, according to whom? Maybe by conviction number yes, but that's because rape rarely gets reported because of the shame and stigma women are subjected to, by attitudes just like Haydens? And how about the lack of belief and "good boys" network of the police - no, never had a network of police involved in a hushed up rape scandal.

You are spouting all the usual ideological BS women have been subjected to since forever about rape, because your privilege imbues you with a cognitive dissonance that women couldn't POSSIBLY be that oppressed, that used, that abused, for sex.

So you've dealt with a troll on your blog. That sort of BS is what women get every day of their lives, openly and subversively. The threats, the shame, the lack of belief.

Thanks for contributing to it. Because if there are women who won't believe rape is such a pernicious problem, why should the men?

I haven't read the comments above because I have the feeling I might ge upset by some of them given the trigger warning and having been triggered by the idiots comments already. Anyway I think Andy Haden could benefit from seeing this a few times over:

Moose, I think Lucy, who made the point about the massive difference in the rates of the two crimes (rape and false allegations of rape) is in agreement with you.

I too get thoroughly fed up with the argument about false rape allegations, which seems to be for each false rape allegations we can cancel out one true rape allegation. Nevermind that false rape allegations appear to be reported in the media much more frequently than actual rapes are.

I should also warn people that there is a v awful comment on that JanLogie thread, so be careful when reading the comments.

Anon, I think you may have confused the opening quote as something else?

It was false accusations of rape that were mentioned as rare when compared to real instances of rape.

And I don't think you'll find much disagreement there from anyone on this thread.

And I don't interpret Lucia's comments as "agreeing with Haden" in terms of trivializing rape, indeed her comment was more along the lines of "don't trust men".

Basic self-defence 101 is to not put yourself into a potentially dangerous situation. That doesn't translate into you "asking for it", it's just general prudence when it comes to men.

This is more about "don't put yourself in a dangerous situation", and that seems wise advice to me (yes, women should expect to be safe, but unfortunately, there are evil people out there, so one must be prudent.).

That thought was inadvertently echoed in Hugh's comment:

...Maybe rugby in and of itself isn't innately encouraging of violence and misogyny, but the current rugby culture here in NZ certainly is.

How could you possibly think Lucia was not agreeing with Haden when she herself commented:

He basically said the same thing I did, but in NZ it's oh so PC to say that.He basically said the same thing I did, but in NZ it's oh so PC to say that.

"Don't trust men" is not an acceptable response to the problem of rape, imho. Particularly when we consider that most rapes are in fact carried out by rapists who know their victims and may already be in some form of relationship with them. It is yet again putting the onus on women for the choices individual men make.

Like Julie I also grew up in a rugby family and enjoyed watching rugby. In my teens I got totally disgusted with the macho, sexist and/or mysoygynist attitudes I saw amongst male rugby players and fans I knew. In reaction, I stopped watching rugby and any sport for many years.

In more recent years it does seem to me there has been some improvement in attitudes of many who are into rugby, and I've got back into watching sport. I watch rugby on TV but still avoid mixing with the masses who go to rugby matches.

I do know quite a few guys who played, have played or are just into rugby who do not support the kinds of attitudes expressed by Haden. But, as is clear from Haden's comments, his supporters, and also quite a few people who phone in to Radio Sports talkback, there's still a lot of people in that milieu who are pretty much in line with Andy Haden's expressed attitudes.

I guess total change takes a long time.

And Andy Haden situated his controversial comments by saying we have [gender] equality now. That's so laughaable when he is talking in a context where male sports dominate, and men make up most of the sports offciails and commentators. It's like he can't see what's right in front of his face.

ZT & LM - "This is more about "don't put yourself in a dangerous situation", and that seems wise advice to me (yes, women should expect to be safe, but unfortunately, there are evil people out there, so one must be prudent.)."

- so what's a dangerous situation then? I'm intrigued. Could you outline exactly what behaviour you consider to be dangerous and what situations you consider to be 'potentially dangerous'? Like am I allowed to go out at night at all? Am I allowed to drink? What if I want to sleep with a guy but I don't know if he's a sportsmen or not? Oh wait am I just not allowed to have sex until I'm married?

Gosh darnit I just don't mind being called PC at all if being non-PC means making up excuses for rapists.

So if a woman doesn't use what you personally consider 'common sense' what then? She's responsible for her attack? Or partly responsible.

Funny I can't seem to find a 'guide for men' or do men just innately know common sense? Too bad we can't have a '10 tips on how to not rape women' list huh?

And funny how you want women to 'be careful' (whatever that means) but there's no mention of men needing to be careful. Mind you if they got attacked at random through no fault of their own it wouldn't be because they weren't careful right?

And thanks for the links I would never have been able to find safety tips for women online myself because Google is just so confusing to me.

So if a woman doesn't use what you personally consider 'common sense' what then? She's responsible for her attack? Or partly responsible.

The point is she bears the serious consequences of an attack. Tracking down and punishing the offender isn't going to undo the damage. Stop focusing on looking to attribute blame (or in your case scorn) for an opinion that seeks to keep women safe.

And this concept of advice is not unique to women. There are actually all sorts of advice given out around home safety, traveling in foreign countries, defensive driving, sports safety etc.

And as for advice for men on avoiding abuse, and victim support services for sexual abuse, they are growing, but you could consider them way behind the services available for women on that score.

For many years, breast cancer had higher public awareness than prostate cancer too, but you don't need to view everything as a competition between men and women on who gets the best advice or funding.

You make rape sound like an accident that happens to the rapist ZT, and that's just so offensive to me.

Also the advice you are pumping is predominantly about stranger rape. Yet most rapes occur in a domestic setting, usually the home of the victim or the rapist, and the rapist knows their victim. Again we end up back at the unacceptable advice "don't trust men".

I see you have not commented further to say that LM wasn't agreeing with Haden.

It's just so very honourable of you to want to keep women safe ZT. Pity your focus should be on the fact that rape is ENTIRELY PREVENTABLE IF MEN WOULD JUST NOT RAPE WOMEN.

Rape isn't a consequence. It's not a punishment for being naughty and having too many drinks. OK? You are attributing blame and you are part of a system that makes women feel shame and guilt for being assaulted when it is NEVER EVER EVER their fault. Get it? NEVER. NEVER.

It doesn't matter what she wears. Where she goes. What time of night it is. Whether she has a drink or five. It doesn't matter.

You don't advise people not to get murdered ZT. When you advise women on how not to get raped you're implying women have control over whether or not they're raped. Which implies blame. If someone breaks into your house people don't say - well it was a little bit your fault because you left the house empty. And really you have a house so umm expect it to get robbed at some point.

There is no 'competition' when it comes to rape advice for men and women. If a man is raped we don't say "well mate, what were you wearing? Had you been drinking?". We don't say "hey were you trying to score a sportsmen?".

You make rape sound like an accident that happens to the rapist ZT, and that's just so offensive to me.

What the????? How on earth could you get that impression? An accident? Come on.

Also the advice you are pumping is predominantly about stranger rape. Yet most rapes occur in a domestic setting, usually the home of the victim or the rapist, and the rapist knows their victim. Again we end up back at the unacceptable advice "don't trust men".

Yes, there are clearly different circumstances to rape, and date rape and stranger rape is the context for this discussion. Are we not allowed to talk about specific issues when that is what is brought up?

No, I was talking about safety. If you want to try to twist everything I say to satisfy your own misconceptions, then this will be a tedious thread.

Rape isn't a consequence. It's not a punishment for being naughty and having too many drinks. OK? You are attributing blame and you are part of a system that makes women feel shame and guilt for being assaulted when it is NEVER EVER EVER their fault. Get it? NEVER. NEVER.

Got that ages ago. You are the one stuck on perceiving everything I write as if this is the case. If you can just try to get past that fixation, you might see I'm saying something different.

It doesn't matter what she wears. Where she goes. What time of night it is. Whether she has a drink or five. It doesn't matter.

You don't advise people not to get murdered ZT.

It should not matter, but unfortunately it can.

It should not matter that being drunk can diminish your safety, but is does. People should be nice and helpful, but some are not.

And I do advise my children how to avoid dangerous situations, how to recognise them and to think about what they are doing.

I do it to myself. I don't display my iPhone in the wrong place. I don't withdraw wads of cash from an ATM without checking out my surroundings. ETC. That doesn't mean I'd blame myself in the sense you mean it if I was attacked.

And guess what? I've been attacked, for no apparent reason, two guys wanting to beat me up just because they thought it would be fun.

Was I "looking for it?" no, of course not, but I can figure out the circumstances of how and why it happened, and I learned from that.

I had also taken the trouble to learn martial arts, so I had options, that in this particular case, was useful.

When you advise women on how not to get raped you're implying women have control over whether or not they're raped. Which implies blame.

Only to your logic. It does not imply blame, it implies situational awareness. It implies that they may be able to take back some control should things get out of hand.

I've also taught women self defence techniques. But they don't need it, right? Because if men didn't rape, they wouldn't need to worry you say...well brilliant. That's the kind of world I want to.

Ughh this is getting pointless because you don't seem to understand anything about rape.

Rape is about power not sex. The idea that women will be raped if they're wearing a short skirt is a myth.

Congratulations on not waving your iPhone around - as a woman I can't NOT wave myself around.

If wearing a potato sack and trying not to make too much noise actually stopped rape then don't you think women would do it?

And being drunk may diminish your safety - but the only alternative is to never drink, ever. And if you're sober your whole life guess what ZT you're still at risk of rape. Sober women are raped too.

Comments like "And I do advise my children how to avoid dangerous situations, how to recognise them and to think about what they are doing." are offensive. You are so used to saying statements like that and getting a cheery pat on the back from your fundy friends that you don't even realise they're offensive. Women who are raped ARE THINKING ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

There are no signs saying "warning rapist ahead" and "don't enter this dangerous situation". Rape survivors aren't idiots who weren't aware of their surroundings or 'weren't thinking' or needed "situational awareness". Don't you think if you knew how to avoid rape and all it took was having a quick look around we might not have rape?

Getting raped isn't the equivalent of not looking left and right and therefore being hit by a car.

I'm sorry you were attacked. That's a terrible thing.

But please don't think that because you were able to fight off your attacker other women can and should do the same. The same advice for women you give out usually says not to fight back. Or wait is that fight back. Or no it's scream. No wait it's don't scream. It's kick them in the nuts. No that makes them angry. No it's gouge their eyes. No it's stay still.

I'm not sure this debate is going to go anywhere good. Can I suggest a cooling off period, where new voices may wish to contribute to this thread, but B, ZT, LM and myself back off for a while? Personally I'd like to be able to not stew in a state of rage for a couple of hours.

I've had a bit to do with public safety messages, and Haden wasn't anywhere close.

Firstly, if it was about warning women that rugby "icons" were/are prone to be rapists, then choosing a medium that has a high female audience rating would be appropriate. Deaker's show doesn't strike me as targetting that demographic, but I might be wrong.

Secondly, to equate allegedly raping a woman (sorry, allegedly "having sex with a near-comatose teenager") with being caught receiving a consensual bj in a car takes minimsation to the extreme, which is not conducive to positive reception by the alleged audience (the foolish women who "target rugby players").

Thirdly, there is a subtle nuance between saying, particularly when advising people of a temporarily raised threat level, "we advise people to take extra care in this area" and saying "you do this at your peril" (which implies both a contribution to the offender's decision and a lack of sympathy or help from anyone else). Haden blatantly missed this nuance.

The guy was minimising alleged offending by comparing it to consensual acts and suggesting that the victim contributed to the alleged offense by being Drunk Within Sight of a Male (a crime punishable by rape). Personally, as a male I find this insulting - MEN CAN SAY NO, TOO. If a bloke (yes, even one who is not a gentleman) sees a drunk woman in a short skirt he is not driven mad by lust.

Neither of the websites mentioned by ZT did any of these things. Even the mention of tight skirts and heels was missing the tagline "wear these at your peril", and mentioned it only on the basis that slightly more extreme measures might be required to enable you to run away faster than the attacker.

In summary, if Haden was delivering a public safety message on avoiding higher-threat situations he should probably have chosen a different media outlet, avoided minimising the extent of the offending, and avoided implying that past survivors contributed to the alleged offence. And he might also have said a line or two about encouraging witnesses/survivors of similar offending to contact the police or support groups, or something practical to do if a woman accidentally finds herself alone with a rugby player.

So he is either extraordinarily bad at issuing public safety messages, or his words should be taken at face value. Either way it was a highly unimpressive effort.

I was having a chat to a male friend of mine about this recently. He said he could "see where Andy was coming from with warning girls not to go near rugby players". His take was that "rugby players have some real scum bags in the group."My opinion was that if the problem is the PLAYERS take them off the street, and leave the girls out of it. Especially in a public statement.As for "putting yourself out there" I asked him that if I was slumped naked and unconcious on queen street what would he do?He said he would cover me, and take me somewhere safe.As would many (I hope Most) men. The abberation is where a vulnerable person is seen as an opportunity to dominate rather than someone to help or simply avoid.Again the issue is with the mindset of the 'attacker' rather than victim.

I can see why the majority of people who have never felt vulnerable or frightened might think it was a well meant statement, a warning to women. The fact of the matter is, that every time some lucky, sheltered person gets up and questions why a victim became a victim we are yet again Missing The Point.

But this woman was perfectly happy to have consenting sex with Brooke beforehand,indeed she initiated it by stalking him to bed him.And its still very grey regarding just when she passed out in relation to when she and Brooke were at it.If say your sexual partner were to simply doze off in the middle of the act with you and you keep "pumping away" is that rape?

How do we know that they had not already begun consentually screwing (again) when she passed out? And what is Brooke supposed to do? Stop?....or carry on as consent has not been withdrawn...or has it by virtue of her no longer being conscious?

In my view there was no rape as consent had obviously been given previously and was still in effect.

This post, and discussion, isn't really about the merits or otherwise of the case against Brooke. There is a lot of water to go under the bridge yet.

That said, not speaking specifically about the allegations against Brooke, I think consent is something that should be actively given and actively sought, and if there is any concern that consent may have been withdrawn (or cannot be actively given) then you should stop. I don't think there is any point at which you can say consent cannot be withdrawn during sex.

And if someone is no longer conscious why on earth do you want to keep having sex with them? Isn't it a mutual (or indeed group) act?

"And if someone is no longer conscious why on earth do you want to keep having sex with them? Isn't it a mutual (or indeed group) act?"

To finish and cum obviously.None of us were there or know the full facts.Maybe Brooke was about to cum and good luck trying to stop that with a man at that moment of release.If however he only started to do the deed AFTER she passed out I agree thats way creepy and totally wrong and he deserves all he gets.But theres major grey around at what point in the exercise did she pass out and was she happy with what was happening prior to that.I say based on the evidence of what her intentions were and that they ended up in bed together that she was.If Brooke was doing something she hadn't wanted,like anal, while she was out then hes dead to rights....but then...what do we really know?

And Haden was right in what he said.Its common knowledge theres a slapper culture in NZ looking to bed the famous and for him to be pilloried by the PC for speaking this truth just makes them look pathetic and out of touch while he looks honest and down to earth.

"Yes if someone passes out you stop having sex. Yes if someone dozes off you stop 'pumping away'.

Why is that even a question? I despair of building a sexual culture which isn't a rape culture if people can ask those sorts of questions."

Because its not black and white.I have dozed off while reciving oral from a girlfriend...it was so relaxing I drifted off.Did I want her to stop? No...certainly not.

I have returned the favour to a Woman who did the same,drifted off to sleep...she was very pleased and insisted I do it again.Its quite a common thing for people to wake their partners in the morning with hand relief and oral sex etc....does this count as rape? I'd bet money that happens alot amoungst people.

Withdraw and use your hand. Simple. An unconscious or sleeping partner, no matter how many times they've consented to sex, is not your meat glove or cum recepticle.

"evidence of what her intentions were and that they ended up in bed together"

A woman is quite entitled to her sexual agency, and if she wants to bed a celebrity, that's her choice. She can say yes to any sex act. But the moment she says, or is INCAPABLE (ie: unconscious, impaired) of saying No, none of her previous consents mean jack shit.

"Its common knowledge theres a slapper culture in NZ looking to bed the famous and for him to be pilloried by the PC for speaking this truth just makes them look pathetic and out of touch while he looks honest and down to earth."

Bingo spot after bingo spot. C'mon James, try harder. Your 'slapper' is a woman in charge of her sexuality; for you to give her a denigrating nick name means you don't respect a woman's sexuality.

PC; code for 'I don't want to think about my privilege'.

'Honest and down to earth': 'speaks the truth that *I* want to hear, so that I don't have to challenge my assumptions about rape, or the sexual power I hold over women' Because if a man you respect (a celebrity, a sportsman, your dad, your brother, your mate, your workmate) is held accountable for rape, or being a rape apologist, then ANY man can be held accountable.

...that you're misinterpreting consent in a sexual relationship that is not your own. You said it yourself "The finer points of what really happened are still beyond us" so why are you so intent in labelling this women/rape victims "slappers", yet picky about "facts" when we call you on your bullshit? Double standards.

"You aren't addressing what I am meaning"

Oh Anon was. We are addressing the point that if you said "I think it's perfectly acceptable for a man to rape a woman under certain circumstances" out loud and in public, you would be treated with as much contempt as Haden deserved. And you deserve now.

I think I have observed the cooling off period, so I would like to add a comment.

Firstly, I think my point about separating out consequences from blame is misunderstood. I'll probably do a post about that on my blog.

Secondly, so that it is clear: My opinion is that if a man has sex with a women who, for whatever reason, doesn't consent (for example, being asleep or passed out) they are obviously guilty of rape.

In terms of talking about the victim and how they might avoid that situation, without my comments being interpreted as "she asked for it" there was an interesting case I read in the papers today:

An airline pilot had sex with a stewardess and she woke up the next day feeling sick and disgusted. She was drunk at the time and does not remember consenting. He claims she most definitely consented.

It seems clear to me that this man (married) put himself in a situation that he had options over. He could have and should have sent the women away when she was clearly drunk, and he did not. He had choices. He now faces a rape charge, and if men started behaving like gentlemen, then people like him wouldn't be in such a situation. Am I being too harsh do you think?

"Oh Anon was. We are addressing the point that if you said "I think it's perfectly acceptable for a man to rape a woman under certain circumstances" out loud and in public, you would be treated with as much contempt as Haden deserved. And you deserve now."

I never said that at all so quit fibbing.My point was that...aside from us not knowing what really happened,is that this women HAD consented to sex with Brooke,she was in bed with him and they had had sex already and IF she had dozed off during another round with him I say that Brooke has a case that consent was still in effect.Maybe she said "mmmmm...thats nice...keep going".She may have and can't remember.I assume Brooke was also under the effect of alcohol too so why isn't he getting a free pass on his behaviour as this women has? His judgement may have been impaired at the time.Sure he's still responsible for his actions but then so is the Women.No-one comes out of this looking good.I also see that she pursued him again for sex so how traumitised was she..if at all as it was the flatmate and not her whos making an issue of this?

Hadens right...Women have to take some responsibility for their actions when they seek to go fame screwing.Brookes let himself down with his behaviour re his wife etc but the woman and the flatmate are no angels either.